Individuals’ experiences of the integration of substance use/addiction and HIV/AIDS services in community settings: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this systematic review are: i) to identify, appraise, and synthesize the best available evidence on individuals' experiences of the integration of substance use/addiction and HIV/AIDS services in community settings, and ii) to identify barriers to and facilitators of the integration of the services. INTRODUCTION: The integration of drug use treatment and HIV services has shown to improve HIV prevention, decrease HIV infection and progression, while improving access to social and support services among substance users. Combined pharmacological and behavioral drug use treatments have been proven to diminish behaviors that increase HIV risk, decrease incidence of the disease, and improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy among individuals who use drugs and are HIV-positive. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The populations of interest in this review include patients who have experienced integrated substance use/addiction and HIV services, as well as health care professionals and policy makers who have been involved in developing or implementing integrated substance use/addiction and HIV/AIDS services. Eligible studies will focus on the views, attitudes, understandings, and perceptions of patients, health care professionals, and policy makers resulting from experience in developing or implementing strategies that have or could inform the integration of substance use/addiction and HIV/AIDS services in community settings. METHODS: Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINHAL. The search for unpublished studies will include OpenGrey, Grey Matters, New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Selected studies will be critically appraised by two independent reviewers for methodological quality. Data will be extracted and then synthesized following the JBI meta-aggregative approach. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020185858.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".